Life In 19x19

Bill Spight wrote:

Uberdude wrote:The whole thing seems to be a way to deflect responsibility for the debacle from the organisers with the insufficient rules to deal with a predictable problem of internet play onto one of the players.

Kim's final decision was akin to rulings made in other games and sports. I would not be surprised if he could point to similar rulings in professional go games. The onus on players is harsh for amateurs, but pro organizations hold their players to high standards.

The focus of my criticism was not the result "Eric wins on time", but the reasons given for it and the style/history of the announcement. By comparing to other instances from pro play in Asia I would expect him to edge towards the "stricter" and less "forgiving and sportsmanship" decision, e.g. their rules for retaking a ko out of turn are stricter than ours typically are (as Dinerstein pointed out when Silt retook a ko out of turn against him at an EGC some years ago). Hajin's (personal, not offical) post included a welcome apology, the first I've seen. If the referee's decision had been more of a "Sorry to the players and the fans, we messed up by not being clear about lag beforehand, there's no good outcome, but we went for Eric time win, please forgive us and be nice to each other" then I expect it wouldn't have provoked such a reaction.

Anyway, Ali's response shows an admirable attitude, I hope we can move on without too much damage and team EGF wins (because that will minimise the effect of this ruling and make it easier to forgive and forget). Ryan will be a challenge though...

atarihuana wrote:i wonder why i thought go would be diffrent than football

Not to mention baseball! Or tennis.

Why can't we all just be more like golf, where players call penalties against themselves.

i am also not intrested in games with such small balls

Uberdude wrote:The focus of my criticism was not the result "Eric wins on time", but the reasons given for it and the style/history of the announcement.

{snip}

Hajin's (personal, not offical) post included a welcome apology, the first I've seen. If the referee's decision had been more of a "Sorry to the players and the fans, we messed up by not being clear about lag beforehand, there's no good outcome, but we went for Eric time win, please forgive us and be nice to each other" then I expect it wouldn't have provoked such a reaction.

As you know, I think that the organizers should do mea culpas. But I think that the referee's decision was impeccable, even if I might have disagreed with it if I had been part of the process.

I mean, the organizers considered not just netlag, but a lost connection, and didn't think that would be a problem. The last time I lost connection to the internet it took me more than two minutes to reconnect. So much for being in 60 seconds byoyomi! Clueless, indeed.

Uberdude wrote:By comparing to other instances from pro play in Asia I would expect him to edge towards the "stricter" and less "forgiving and sportsmanship" decision

I am sure Myungwan tried to do his best, and his attempt to pronounce a verdict that would be similar to verdicts in eastern go, proves it.

But in this point it was a bad decision IMO. Eastern tournaments are backed by detailed rules, and here we were in a situation of lacking rules. Therefore his goal should be more political: to minimize the amount of indignation among go public, and to follow common sense rather than strict formalism. Public would accept common sense much better than strict eastern conventions.

I must write that Hajin Lee's post made me pretty angry.

Her story is basically: why is everyone so mad (after enormous screw-up we made), we did not know that lag exists on KGS, or that something unforeseen could have happen, Mateusz is guilty because he did not complain earlier (!, and not organizers who organized important match on go server, nor judge who made three different calls).

But this is stupidest of all:

With the first appeal, he learned that Eric's proctor was not paying attention to Eric's moves because this part was not included in the proctor's written job description.

WTF does this have to do with Mateusz proctor who had noticed that he played on time?
What kind of appeal is this? Making stupid appeal, in order to win on unsportmanship manner, that is accepted by "unbiased" referee? And this ruling is like "catch-22" - we could have approved that you had lag problems, but although your proctor spotted problem, he was not authorized for this so we cannot accept it.

And organizers are now shocked to see everyone is mad at them?
You really have to be stupid and ignorant for such behavior.

Ali Jabarin on Facebook wrote:
We also need to recognize that the organizers are mostly volunteers and even though it's just online, this tournament still took a lot of work by them and ultimately their goal is just to support the Go community, even if mistakes like not having extra-clear rules for lag situations were made we need to be encouraging the organizers to hold more and better tournaments, not flame them.

Good point. Even if the decision and/or communication was not good, let's not criticize organizers too much, otherwise no one will want to do the job in the future. Let's hope that they will do better next time.

k0n0 wrote: Why did AGA players appeal? I can understand that in case it was Eric who had a lag problem then he wouldn't be so lucky like Mateusz, because Eric's proctor was not paying attention to Eric's moves. So theoretically Eric would be in disadvantage.

But in reality Eric had no lag problems, only Mateusz had them. The organizers didn't foresee this problem, they didn't create rules solving lags, and this one unique situation had to be solved. Fortunately the proctor noticed when Mateusz tried to play. So the game could be resumed without any suspicion that Mateusz cheated.
I don't see the role of Eric's proctor here.

In other words, if Myungwan was in train of creation of rules that should be valid in future, and those rules included "if the proctor wants and has spare time, he can check whether KGS lags", and proctors of AGA didn't want to do this job, then AGA would be in disavantage and I would understand why AGA would protest against such rules. But this is not our case.

You are missing a point:
- Surma's appeal: I tried to click and it did not register due to a lag. Proctor confirms this.
- AGA team appeal: Our proctor did not got written instructions on lag.
How can one dismiss first proctor's statement based on this?

Bill Spight wrote:

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:...
While I may not agree with Kim's decision, as I do not know what evidence and arguments he considered...

If what Surma knew or did not know is considered relevant, should we not hold Kim to the same standard?

Be my guest. Don't invite him to referee your next tournament, if you don't like his rulings.

Disappointing statement.

Uberdude wrote:I hope we can move on without too much damage and team EGF wins (because that will minimise the effect of this ruling and make it easier to forgive and forget).

Besides sportsmanship this is another flaw in the AGA players' behaviour: they chose a line of play where they can still completely lose the tournament but can not completely win it anymore.

Bojanic wrote:You are missing a point:
- Surma's appeal: I tried to click and it did not register due to a lag. Proctor confirms this.
- AGA team appeal: Our proctor did not got written instructions on lag.
How can one dismiss first proctor's statement based on this?

I think the first Surma's action is called a "protest". Notice also Hajin Lee thinks the 1st "appeal" is that one from AGA.

I may be stupid too, but who dismissed the proctor's statement?

Kono,

Please explain what you think why referee decided to approve AGA appeal, which by one of the organizers contains „proctors don't have written instruction to monitor lag“.

I don't see any other point than to try to remove proctor's statement that Surma played on time.

The last line by Ali Jabarin, anticipating on a Nongshim Cup, shows that the acceptance by the EGF team is not only inspired by goodwill towards the opponents or the organizers but also by preservation of professional activity. His letter is not only an act of class but also one of long term rationality.

I don't blame the organizers a single bit. They didn't prepare for the unexpected and they have learned a lesson. I can understand the referee wanted to apply what he thought was closest to the ruling a professional body would make but his standards being higher than the organization of this event, resulted in an unfair decision. Like Ali, I don't understand the appeal by the AGA players for a second and I would be very embarrassed as an AGA player or official.

This victory will eventually come down on the AGA as a Pyrrhus-victory. They will likely lose the full encounter and with disgrace. I see practically only one way out for them: deliberately running out of time in one of the next games, from a winning position.

Knotwilg wrote:His letter is not only an act of class but also one of long term rationality.

I have to agree with this. I thought of one word while reading Ali's statement: classy.